Well you already asked me to watch it. Based on what you are saying, it may provide a good example on how to score a fight with not much action. I mean yeah if some guy is just running away, and the other guy is just chasing him, like Bonecrusher Smith Tyson or something, do you just give it to the aggressor? wasn't that kind of like Pacquiao vs Floyd. Pacquiao was the aggressor and Floyd was doing a lot of stalling right. Do you think Pacquiao won the fight because he was the aggressor?
I hate Floyd. BUT Floyd makes guys miss and lands shots of his own. If he's landing more punches, then he deserves the win, regardless of how annoying he and his style are. If he was landing the same amount of punches as the guy chasing him, then yeah, the other guy should win.
I've seen videos on youtube where Pac fans go round by round punch by punch, count punches landed and conclude that Pacquiao landed more punches in the fight. Surely you've seen these videos, most of the rounds in May - Pac may have been close enough to that threshold you speak of where the aggressor should win the close rounds because he's being the aggressor.
I haven't seen the slomo videos. If Pac landed more punches and was the aggressor then I agree he should have won. If Pac landed brushes and PBF landed clean hard shots, then, he likely should have won. I'll be honest, I didn't even watch the whole fight, it just wasn't that exciting to me. Pac was kinda over the hill and Floyd still had it. You could see by about the halfway mark what the outcome would be, without the slomo replay.
Hypothetical, how few punches can a boxer land and still win a fight? Is one enough? If I land one punch and my opponent lands zero, should I be declared the winner, or should it be declared a non-contest? What is like the minimum level of offense you would allow from a defensive fighter who just negates what his opponent does the whole time? Does he only have to land one punch a round? Can you call that a fight at that point? It feels like I'm watching a game of tag sometimes when nobody gets hurt. I stopped watching Mayweather fights after a while because it was so slow and low scoring. Imagine watching an NBA game where instead of scoring 100 points the teams only scored 20. Guys used to do that before they invented the shot clock. They'd get a little lead and sit on it, dribbling and passing, never shooting because they'd lose control of the ball. It bored the **** out of people.
That's a fair question, and one I don't have the answer to. That Nelson / de Leon fight was one of those. They probably landed 4 punches apiece per round. What a stinkfest. Maybe a portion of a fighter's purse ought to be docked if he consistently fails to land more than 8 punches a round? Even a clean jab will do, so long as SOMEthing happens.
But aggression is the pre-resiquite to causing damage. Which is why it should be awarded points. A counterpuncher ain't gonna have much to counter if the other decides to counter as well.
No it shouldn't unless it leads to more damage caused than the opponent. That's why only effective aggression is scored.
No. If you are backing someone up in an even round, it shows you are in control. The round should then go to the aggressor. Rewarding fighters who back peddle who never engage is crappy for the sport.
What exactly are you saying no to? No it doesn't. A retreating fighter can be in control. If the round is even then neither is in control. If they never engage then yes. If they are effectively countering the other fighter then no.
"make someone miss impressively like Willie Pepp" Sure Willie made people miss a lot, but the thing is if your actual criteria for winning a round is making someone miss a lot, you don't know boxing. It's easy to make a guy miss if you aren't trying to land any punches yourself. It's very hard to KO someone who is only fighting to survive. I think many casual fans see a fighter dodging punches and think "WOW THATS AMAZING". I do think that it takes more talent and skill to make people miss than it does to simply move forward, but moving forward takes balls and you have to have one person moving forward to have a fight. Simple as that.
So if 2 are counterpuncher, why should one initiate? Why not both back away and have no fight? The person who goes in entertains the fans, takes the risk, but is awarded no points. Sounds like a bad deal to me.
Very well thought out. I have thought of this. Truth is, those guys who seem like "can't crack an egg" definitely can. If they truly were that lacking of power they would definitely get walked down. They may not land anything that hurts the opponent, but I garuntee you if the bigger man was doing some really predictable stuff, he probably gets timed with a hard shot. A well timed shot by a small fighter can do a ton of damage. The opponents of those small guys definitely feel some sort of risk going in, otherwise they'd probably end up really ****ing them up.